Dist. 31, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 31
Articulus I. De duratione caritatis per comparationem ad peccatum sibi oppositum.
Quaestio II. Utrum cadens a caritate possit resurgere in aequali.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum a caritate cadens possit resurgere in aequali. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Primo per vetus Testamentum. Malachiae tertio1: Placebit Deo sacrificium Iuda et Ierusalem, sicut dies saeculi et sicut anni antiqui; Glossa: «Quomodo in principio placuerunt, ita post peccatum per poenitentiam placere coeperunt»; et hoc ipsum habetur expresse in Glossa super illud Levitici septimo2: Haec est hostia pro delicto; Glossa: «Aeque placet Deo virtus iustorum et digna poenitentia peccatorum, quae restituit in gradum pristinum»: ergo potest homo resurgere in aequali caritate.
2. Item, hoc ipsum probatur per novum Testamentum. Scribitur enim ad Romanos quinto3: Ubi abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia; et Lucae decimo quinto: Cito proferte ei stolam primam; ibi Glossa: «Pristinae dignitati filium restituit»; sed non restituitur in pristinam dignitatem, nisi habeat aequalem caritatem: ergo etc.
3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per exemplum: quia David post peccatum homicidii resurrexit devotior, et Petrus post negationem resurrexit fortior, secundum quod dicunt auctoritates Sanctorum, et Scriptura4 innuit: ergo videtur, quod similiter in aliis esse possit.
4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione, quia, cum gratia infunditur homini peccatori, peccatum deletur secundum veritatem et secundum Dei reputationem5: ergo nullum praestat infusioni ipsius gratiae impedimentum; nec est aliud, quod impediat, quare non possit dari tanta gratia homini, quanta prius: ergo videtur, quod homo possit in aequali caritate resurgere.
Ad oppositum:
Sed contra: 1. Amos quinto6: Non adiiciet, ut resurgat virgo Israel; Glossa: «Non negat, quin possit resurgere, sed ne possit resurgere virgo; quia semel aberrans, et si reportetur humeris pii pastoris, non habet tantam gloriam cum eo qui nunquam erravit».
2. Item, Ezechielis quadragesimo quarto7: Levitae, qui longe recesserunt a me, non approximabunt ad me, ut sacerdotio fungantur mihi: si ergo Deus peccatores et poenitentes non recipit ad dignitatem sacerdotalem, videtur, quod resurgentes non possint habere caritatem aequalem.
3. Item, gratia gratis data nunquam tantum potest disponere ad susceptionem divinae influentiae et capacitatem divinae bonitatis, sicut gratia gratum faciens; sed iustus, antequam cadat, habet gratiam gratum facientem; peccator, antequam resurgat, non habet nisi gratiam gratis datam: ergo amplius dispositus est homo ad susceptionem divinae gratiae, antequam cadat, quam postquam cecidit. Si ergo Deus
communicat homini gratiam et caritatem, secundum quod homo est dispositus8: videtur, quod maiorem habeat homo caritatem, quando stat, quam quando resurgit: ergo videtur, quod non possit resurgere in caritate aequali.
4. Item, cum sit triplex status continentiae, scilicet virginalis, vidualis et coniugalis, cadens a primo statu nunquam potest ad primum statum resurgere9: ergo si innocentia baptismalis est sicut continentia virginalis, videtur, quod cadens ab illo statu nunquam poterit in aequali resurgere: ergo non potest homo resurgere in aequali caritate.
Conclusio.
Possibile est, quod homo post amissionem caritatis resurgat in aequali caritate.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod possibile est, hominem in aequali caritate resurgere, sicut monstrari potest auctoritatibus et exemplis et rationibus congruis, secundum quod in opponendo10 tactum fuit. — Sive enim dicamus, quantitatem gratiae mensurari secundum divinam largitatem, sive secundum suscipientis idoneitatem, recte contingit intelligere, quod caritas, in qua quis resurgit, potest esse aequalis illi caritati, a qua prius cecidit. Nam ex parte divinae largitatis planum est. Ad eius enim commendationem spectat, ut non minus larga dona tribuat homini, quam ante tribuebat, secundum quod dicit Augustinus11, nisi ineptitudo suscipientis impediat. — Ex parte vero hominis se disponentis satis planum est; possibile est enim, ut homo post peccatum amplius detestetur malum et abhorreat peccatum quam prius; sicut multi corrupti amplius detestantur peccatum carnis quam multi, qui nunquam fuerunt lapsi. — Et sic rationabiliter poni potest et debet, quod contingat hominem resurgere in aequali caritate; et rationes, quae hoc ostendunt, concedendae sunt.
Ad argumenta in oppositum:
Ad 1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod nunquam resurgit virgo nec habet tantam gloriam cum eo qui nunquam peccavit; dicendum, quod est gloria quaedam accidentalis et gloria praemii substantialis. Si loquamur de gloria accidentali, sic Glossa illa habet veritatem. Quaedam enim gloria est, in qua quis gloriatur, se nunquam peccasse, in quam non poterit resurgere qui aliquando peccavit12. Si loquamur de gloria praemii substantialis, quae consistit in videndo et amando Deum, non habet veritatem; et penes hanc attenditur quantitas caritatis, non penes aliam. Et ideo ratio illa non cogit.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Levitae recedentes a Domino inepti erant ad dignitatem sacerdotalem; dicendum, quod sacerdotalis dignitas non tantum respicit rectitudinem voluntatis, sed etiam dignitatem exterioris decoris, propter quam contingit, hominem etiam non peccantem fieri irregularem13. Caritas vero rectitudinem voluntatis respicit proprie et praecise. Et propterea ratio illa non valet, quia non est simile hinc inde.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nunquam disponitur homo per gratiam gratis datam sicut per gratiam gratum facientem; dicendum, quod ad hoc, quod quis se disponat, duo concurrunt, scilicet adiutorium gratiae et cooperatio liberi arbitrii14. Loquendo de dispositione, quantum est ex parte ipsius gratiae, magis est dispositus ad susceptionem omnis boni, qui est in gratia gratum faciente, quam qui illa caret. Sed loquendo de cooperatione liberi arbitrii, non semper habet veritatem, quia in cadente a caritate liberum arbitrium caritati et gratiae non cooperatur, immo potius adversatur et adversando potius disponit ad caritatis defectionem quam ad eius susceptionem; sed in resurgente est e contrario, sicut patet. Et ideo ratio illa non valet.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de continentia virginali, dicendum, quod meritum illius continentiae respicit praemium accidentale de se, et simul cum hoc respicit quandam dispositionem in carne, quae cum amissa est, recuperari non potest; caritas vero praemium substantiale respicit et rectitudinem voluntatis, quae, cum obliquata est, ita bene ut prius cum adiutorio gratiae Dei potest rectificari. Et sic patet, quod non est simile. — Et si obiiciat ulterius, quod innocentia baptismalis similis est statui continentiae virginalis; dicendum, quod quantum ad quandam gloriam accidentalem quodam modo similis est; et de illa potest concedi, quod homo in tanta gloria non resurgit: ex hoc tamen non oportet, quod caritas non sit aequalis. — De hoc autem eodem problemate habetur in libro quarto distinctione decima quarta15, ubi quaeritur, utrum perfecta poenitentia in statum pristinum hominem restituat16.
---
Article I. On the duration of charity in comparison with the sin opposed to it.
Question II. Whether one who has fallen from charity can rise again in an equal charity.
Secondly it is asked, whether one who has fallen from charity can rise again in an equal one. And that he can seems true:
1. First, from the Old Testament. Malachi 31: The sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem shall please God, as in the days of old, and as in the ancient years; the Gloss: "As they pleased in the beginning, so after sin, through penance, they began to please"; and this same thing is had expressly in the Gloss on that text of Leviticus 72: This is the sacrifice for transgression; the Gloss: "Equally pleasing to God is the virtue of the just and the worthy penance of sinners, which restores to the former rank": therefore a man can rise again in an equal charity.
2. Likewise, this same thing is proved from the New Testament. For it is written to the Romans 53: Where transgression abounded, grace did more abound; and Luke 15: Quickly bring forth the first robe for him; there the Gloss: "He restores the son to his former dignity"; but he is not restored to his former dignity unless he has an equal charity: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by example: because David after the sin of murder rose again more devout, and Peter after his denial rose again stronger, according to what the authorities of the Saints say, and as Scripture4 suggests: therefore it seems that it can be likewise in others.
4. Likewise, this same thing is shown by reason, because, when grace is infused into a sinful man, the sin is blotted out in truth and according to God's reckoning5: therefore it offers no impediment to the infusion of that grace; nor is there anything else to impede why so great a grace cannot be given to a man as before: therefore it seems that a man can rise again in an equal charity.
To the contrary:
On the contrary: 1. Amos 56: He shall no more add, that the virgin of Israel may rise again; the Gloss: "He does not deny that she can rise again, but that she cannot rise again a virgin; because, once having gone astray, even if she be carried back on the shoulders of the devout shepherd, she does not have so great a glory with him who never strayed."
2. Likewise, Ezekiel 447: The Levites, who have gone far from me, shall not come near to me, to discharge the priestly office for me: if therefore God does not receive sinners and penitents to the priestly dignity, it seems that those who rise again cannot have an equal charity.
3. Likewise, gratuitously given grace can never dispose so much for the reception of the divine influence and for the capacity of the divine goodness as grace that makes pleasing; but the just man, before he falls, has grace that makes pleasing; the sinner, before he rises again, has only gratuitously given grace: therefore a man is more disposed for the reception of divine grace before he falls than after he has fallen. If therefore God
communicates to a man grace and charity according as the man is disposed8: it seems that a man has a greater charity when he stands than when he rises again: therefore it seems that he cannot rise again in an equal charity.
4. Likewise, since there is a threefold state of continence, namely virginal, widowed, and conjugal, one who falls from the first state can never rise again to the first state9: therefore if baptismal innocence is like virginal continence, it seems that one who falls from that state can never rise again in an equal one: therefore a man cannot rise again in an equal charity.
Conclusion.
It is possible that a man, after the loss of charity, should rise again in an equal charity.
I respond: It must be said that it is possible for a man to rise again in an equal charity, as can be shown by authorities and examples and fitting reasons, according to what was touched on in the arguing of the case10. — For whether we say that the quantity of grace is measured according to the divine bounty, or according to the fitness of the recipient, it is rightly understood that the charity in which one rises again can be equal to that charity from which he first fell. For on the part of the divine bounty it is plain. For it pertains to the commendation of God's bounty that he bestow on a man gifts not less generous than he bestowed before, according to what Augustine says11, unless the unfitness of the recipient impedes it. — And on the part of the man disposing himself it is plain enough; for it is possible that a man after sin should detest evil and abhor sin more than before; just as many corrupt persons detest the sin of the flesh more than many who have never fallen. — And so it can and must reasonably be held that it happens that a man rises again in an equal charity; and the reasons which show this are to be granted.
To the arguments to the contrary:
To 1. To that which is objected first, that the virgin never rises again nor has so great a glory with him who never sinned; it must be said that there is a certain accidental glory and the glory of the substantial reward. If we speak of accidental glory, then that Gloss holds true. For there is a certain glory in which one glories that he has never sinned, into which he who has at some time sinned cannot rise again12. If we speak of the glory of the substantial reward, which consists in seeing and loving God, it does not hold true; and the quantity of charity is reckoned by this glory, not by the other. And therefore that reason does not compel.
To 2. To that which is objected, that the Levites who departed from the Lord were unfit for the priestly dignity; it must be said that the priestly dignity regards not only rectitude of the will, but also a dignity of exterior comeliness, on account of which it happens that even a man who does not sin becomes irregular13. But charity regards rectitude of the will properly and precisely. And therefore that reason is not valid, because the case is not alike on either side.
To 3. To that which is objected, that a man is never disposed by gratuitously given grace as he is by grace that makes pleasing; it must be said that for one to dispose himself, two things concur, namely the help of grace and the cooperation of free choice14. Speaking of the disposition, so far as it is on the part of grace itself, he who is in grace that makes pleasing is more disposed for the reception of every good than he who lacks it. But speaking of the cooperation of free choice, it does not always hold true, because in one falling from charity the free choice does not cooperate with charity and grace, but rather opposes them, and by opposing rather disposes toward the defection of charity than toward its reception; but in one rising again it is the contrary, as is evident. And therefore that reason is not valid.
To 4. To that which is objected concerning virginal continence, it must be said that the merit of that continence regards an accidental reward of itself, and together with this regards a certain disposition in the flesh, which once lost cannot be recovered; but charity regards the substantial reward and rectitude of the will, which, when it has been bent aside, can just as well as before be set right again with the help of God's grace. And so it is evident that the case is not alike. — And if one objects further, that baptismal innocence is like the state of virginal continence; it must be said that with regard to a certain accidental glory it is in some way like it; and concerning that it can be granted that a man does not rise again in so great a glory: yet from this it does not follow that the charity is not equal. — But concerning this same problem it is treated in the fourth book, distinction fourteen15, where it is asked whether perfect penance restores a man to his former state16.
---
- Vers. 4. — In Glossa, quae petita est ex Hieronymi exposit. in hunc loc., cod. E cum textu origin. post placuerunt addit Deo.Verse 4. — In the Gloss, which is drawn from Jerome's exposition on this passage, codex E, with the original text, adds Deo after placuerunt.
- Vers. 1: Haec quoque lex hostiae pro delicto. — Glossa habetur apud Lyranum (ad v. 2.) ut interlinearis.Verse 1: This also is the law of the sacrifice for transgression. — The Gloss is found in Lyra (on v. 2) as the interlinear gloss.
- Vers. 20. — Seq. Script. locus est Luc. 15, 22. — Glossa sumta est ex Bedae exposit. in cap. cit. 2. 19: Pristinae filiorum restituit dignitati.Verse 20. — The following Scripture passage is Luke 15, 22. — The Gloss is taken from Bede's exposition on the cited chapter, 2. 19: He restores [him] to the former dignity of sons.
- Libr. II. Reg. 12, 13. seqq.; Matth. 26, 75. Cfr. Ambros., I. Apologia prophetae David, c. 2. n. 3. seqq. et c. 8. n. 43; Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 21. n. 4; homil. 25. n. 9; homil. 30. n. 8; Chrysost., Orat. 8. adversus Hebr. n. 3; Beda, in Ps. 50, 1. seqq. et in Ps. 91. n. 4.2 Kings (2 Samuel) 12, 13 ff.; Matthew 26, 75. Cf. Ambrose, Apology of the Prophet David I, c. 2, n. 3 ff. and c. 8, n. 43; Gregory, Homilies on the Gospels II, hom. 21, n. 4; hom. 25, n. 9; hom. 30, n. 8; Chrysostom, Oration 8 against the Hebrews, n. 3; Bede, on Psalm 50, 1 ff. and on Psalm 91, n. 4.
- Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 17. p. 1. a. 1. q. I. et a. 2. q. I. seqq.Cf. IV Sent. d. 17, p. 1, a. 1, q. I and a. 2, q. I ff.
- Vers. I. seq. Vulgata sic distinguit duas propositiones: ut resurgat. (v. 2.) Virgo Israel proiecta est etc. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, delibata est ex Hieronymi Comment. in hunc locum. — Pro non habet edd. non tamen habet.Verse 1 f. The Vulgate thus distinguishes two propositions: that it may rise again. (v. 2.) The virgin of Israel is cast down etc. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary one, is excerpted from Jerome's Commentary on this passage. — For non habet the editions read non tamen habet.
- Vers. 10. et 13. — Paulo inferius pro resurgentes non possint codd. F 1 L N resurgens non possit.Verses 10 and 13. — A little below, for resurgentes non possint codices F 1 L N read resurgens non possit.
- Matth. 25, 15: Et uni dedit quinque talenta... unicuique secundum propriam virtutem.Matthew 25, 15: And to one he gave five talents... to each according to his own ability.
- Hieron., Epist. 22. ad Eustoch. n. 5: Cum omnia possit Deus, suscitare virginem non potest post ruinam. — Pro ad primum cod. K ad pristinum, edd. 1, 2 ad ipsum, Vat. ad ipsum primum.Jerome, Letter 22 to Eustochium, n. 5: Though God can do all things, he cannot raise up a virgin after her ruin. — For ad primum codex K reads ad pristinum, the editions 1, 2 read ad ipsum, the Vatican edition ad ipsum primum.
- Scil. in fundamentis.That is, in the foundations (the affirmative arguments above).
- Epist. 153. (alias 54.) c. 3. n. 7: vide IV. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XIV. circa finem.Letter 153 (otherwise 54), c. 3, n. 7: see IV Sent., the Master's text, d. XIV, near the end.
- Cfr. I. Sent. d. 12. q. 3. — Supra pro in quam (ita codd. AEIKLT et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 73. s. 2.) in aliis in qua, subinde pro non poterit cod. A nunquam poterit.Cf. I Sent. d. 12, q. 3. — Above, for in quam (so codices AEIKLT and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, collation 73, s. 2) other manuscripts read in qua, and thereupon for non poterit codex A reads nunquam poterit.
- Incurritur irregularitas ob defectum tam corporis quam animi. — Pro fieri cod. L esse.Irregularity is incurred on account of a defect of body as well as of mind. — For fieri codex L reads esse.
- Cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. p. 2. q. I. et 3.Cf. II Sent. d. 28, p. 2, q. I and 3.
- Partis II. a. 2. q. I. et 2. — Superius pro Et si obiiciat codd. I L W Et si obiicias.Part II, a. 2, q. I and 2. — Above, for Et si obiiciat codices I L W read Et si obiicias.
- Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question.